Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, January 20, 2010

GOP’s Brown pulls upset to win Mass. Senate race

January 20, 2010

Advertisement

— In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to win the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy for nearly half a century, leaving President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul in doubt and marring the end of his first year in office.

The loss by the once-favored Democrat Martha Coakley in the Democratic stronghold was a stunning embarrassment for the White House after Obama rushed to Boston on Sunday to try to save the foundering candidate. Her defeat on Tuesday signaled big political problems for the president’s party this fall when House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates are on the ballot nationwide.

“I have no interest in sugarcoating what happened in Massachusetts,” said Sen. Robert Menendez, the head of the Senate Democrats’ campaign committee. “There is a lot of anxiety in the country right now. Americans are understandably impatient.”

Brown will become the 41st Republican in the 100-member Senate, which could allow the GOP to block the president’s health care legislation. Democrats needed Coakley to win for a 60th vote to thwart Republican filibusters. The trouble may go deeper: Democratic lawmakers could read the results as a vote against Obama’s broader agenda, weakening their support for the president. And the results could scare some Democrats from seeking office this fall.

The Republican will finish Kennedy’s unexpired term, facing re-election in 2012.

Brown led by 52 percent to 47 percent with all but 3 percent of precincts counted. Turnout was exceptional for a special election in January, with light snow reported in parts of the state. More voters showed up at the polls Tuesday than in any non-presidential general election in Massachusetts since 1990.

One day shy of the first anniversary of Obama’s swearing-in, the election played out amid a backdrop of animosity and resentment from voters over persistently high unemployment, Wall Street bailouts, exploding federal budget deficits and partisan wrangling over health care.

“I voted for Obama because I wanted change. ... I thought he’d bring it to us, but I just don’t like the direction that he’s heading,” said John Triolo, 38, a registered independent who voted in Fitchburg.

He said his frustrations, including what he considered the too-quick pace of health care legislation, led him to vote for Brown.

For weeks considered a long shot, Brown seized on voter discontent to overtake Coakley in the campaign’s final stretch. His candidacy energized Republicans, including backers of the “tea party” protest movement, while attracting disappointed Democrats and independents uneasy with where they felt the nation was heading.

A cornerstone of Brown’s campaign was his promise to vote against the health care plan.

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin said he would notify the U.S. Senate today that Brown had been elected. Originally, he had said he might take over two weeks to certify the results of the special election, giving Democrats a window in which to try to rush through final passage of Obama’s health care plan.

Brown will be the first Republican senator from Massachusetts in 30 years.

Comments

leedavid 4 years, 11 months ago

Nice job Senator Brown. Health care bill...gone. Cap and Trade Bill....gone. Finally the republicans will have some voice in each.

I am so glad liberals are selfish. They had a year to get done anything they wanted and lucky for us in fighting, bribes and corruption prevented them from getting much done.

Now hopefully we can get to working on the economy.

Here is a clue, for every time Obama took a trip to help out...what was the outcome? Olympics, Coakley, other elections held in 2010? I would say, don't invite Obama to come help you out. The record is not good in that regard.

leedavid 4 years, 11 months ago

Whoops 2009 not 2010 my smart mouth jumped up and bit my dumb "you know what".

KS 4 years, 11 months ago

Hooray for America! Yes, there is a God.

Liberty275 4 years, 11 months ago

A most excellent evenings of watching the returns and concession speech come in. Then wow! Scott Brown is ready to pull obama's plug and big name democrats are ready to help him out.

I think maybe the arrogant democrats trying to force their socialist agenda on America will start thinking twice.

BigPrune 4 years, 11 months ago

I'm glad the American people are awake. Massachusetts is just the tip of the iceberg and replacing Kennedy of all people with a Republican, it makes me giddy. Didn't the Democrats toy with the idea of renaming the health care bill in memory of Teddy?

Progressives ruined our city, why let them ruin our country?

gphawk89 4 years, 11 months ago

The American people have spoken. This is a nice preview of the mid-terms and the big one in 2012.

Psalms20 4 years, 11 months ago

I am super happy! A clear message was sent to Washington! We can only hope that it brings light to the situation that we the people are in charge, that we the people are Washington's bosses! I dont want the Republications to gain majority I don't want the Dems to have it either. I want a Washington that truly works together, that says " you know what, that sounds ok, but let me talk to my employers and see what they have to say about it. I'll get back to you"

Do you think that is even possible?

Do you think God really cares about America's little elections?

Me personally, I think he truly wonders why we look to an elected official for the answers. Why we as a country stopped looking and seeking him for guidance. Our forefathers did, what changed?

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

WOW americans have short memories. The last repub admin put 8 million people out of work. Then again so did Reagan-Bush. Yep both even wrecked economies.

The republican party are masters at putting millions upon millions upon millions of people out of work. AND stealing taxpayers retirement plans along the way.

Repubs do with a remarkable degree of consistency is wreck the economy,initiate huge movements of shipping jobs abroad aka the Reagan-Bush Global Economy and try to wreck social security and medicare.

Is there a definite pattern? Absolutely!

  1. The Reagan/ Bush Home Loan Scandal http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

  2. The Bush/Cheney Home Loan Scandal http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

  3. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

  4. Why did GW Bush Lie About Social Security?( This would cost taxpayers $4 trillion and wreck the economy) http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html

  5. Still A Bad Idea – Bush Tax Cuts http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0301miller.html

  6. The "tea parties" BTW are part of the wreckanomics program funded by the Koch Brothers... well known oil billionaires. These thinkers back a tax payers bill of rights which is another scheme to reward the upper 1% which is designed to wreck local and state governments.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0705rebne.html

All of the above displays reckless economic behavior that which drains the cookie jars. Now the only way to get them revenues back is to take them back.

What do Reagan,Bush and Bush republicans plan for 2010. Start the typical repub character assassination campaign which in essence is a massive cover-up scheme for the financial disasters that illustrate how the repub are NOT financial giants of our time have screwed up USA economics for the past 30 years.

Think about it. In the past 30 years the repub party has been in involved two major home loan scandals that effectively took the USA economy down the tubes. One is too damn many but twice represents repub economic policy. Wreckanomics is a failed economic policy. In fact wreckanomics is beginning to smell like well planned crimes.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 11 months ago

The Democrats failed to please the voters by insisting that they sick an icepick in their collective forehead just to protect the profits of Wall Street and Big Health.

So what do the voters do? They elect a Republican who will help the rest of the Repugs in Washington disembowel anyone whose income is less than a $half million a year.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 11 months ago

Keep posting that same set of links, merrill. By the 10,000th time, everybody will recognize your wisdom (not). In other news: it appears Dear Leader has made the classic mistake of believing his own hype. You'd have thought that after the spanking he got from the IOC he'd have realized that the "show up & read from the teleprompter" business wasn't working any more.

leedavid 4 years, 11 months ago

Uh Merrill ...Obama has spent more money in one year than Bush did his entire eight year administration. He has put more people out of work, more home foreclosures, and the highest national debt ever. Fanny and Freddie Mae had a huge role in this mess, and nobody is going to say Bush propped them up, now will they?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 11 months ago

"A clear message was sent to Washington! "

Really? What is that message, other than that the wackosphere represented so well here see Brown as a member of "their team," and Coakley as not?

Both of them were hideous candidates, and it's almost a certainty that Brown will not win re-election in 2012.

Is this a repudiation of Obama? Sure, and he deserved it. But Brown goes to Washington with nothing more than an obstructionist agenda. He wouldn't know good policy if it landed on his vacuous head.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 11 months ago

The message was "Democrats, prepare to rejoin the private sector."

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

“I voted for Obama because I wanted change. ... I thought he’d bring it to us, but I just don’t like the direction that he’s heading,” said John Triolo, 38, a registered independent who voted in Fitchburg.

Buyer's remorse. Pretty much sums it up nicely.


just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

"Really? What is that message, other than that the wackosphere represented so well here see Brown as a member of “their team,” and Coakley as not?"

The fact that you (as usual) did not understand the message, Herr Klowne, does not mean one wasn't sent. And as I just posted to one of your compadres on another thread:

'The fact that you fail to see the significance of this event is the best news of all ... That so many liberal/Democrat kool-aid drinkers remain so utterly clueless only means that 1) it will be that much easier for the voters to correct their mistake from November '08, and 2) it will be ever so satisfying when we do so.'

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 11 months ago

That's a very catchy phase, snap, but what policies will Brown try to implement?

"Democrats bad, me good," isn't a platform from which to actually govern.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

merrill (Anonymous) says…

"WOW americans have short memories."

Why, yes, they do, mertle. Finally something we can agree on.

Americans seemingly forgot the last time they opted for change solely for the sake of change, without stopping to think about what that change would mean. We got stuck with the peanut farmer.

The refreshing part is they appear to be learning from their mistakes, and not taking as long as they have in the past to work on correcting them.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 11 months ago

"The fact that you (as usual) did not understand the message"

Apparently, I'm not the only one, given that you can't seem to articulate it other than to say "We Won!!!"

The political sophistication of you wackjobs is no better than that of the Crips and the Bloods.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 11 months ago

"I don’t care what he does as long as he is the monkey wrench that grinds DC to a stand still."

And sadly, this is what our politics have come to.

The voters voted against the Democrat because Democrats have adopted what have essentially been Republican policies. And who do they vote for? A Republican.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

"Apparently, I'm not the only one, given that you can't seem to articulate it other than to say “We Won!!!”"

Well, boohoozo, apparently you're about the only one on this thread (so far) who couldn't even read the story above, let alone figure out the message for themselves.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 11 months ago

I will season my lunch today with the bitter tears of disappointed Commi-symp fellow-travelers.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 11 months ago

I did read the story, nota, and this is the closest thing to a policy statement to be found

"A cornerstone of Brown’s campaign was his promise to vote against the health care plan."

So is he just going to cast that one vote and go home?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 11 months ago

"The political sophistication of you wackjobs is no better than that of the Crips and the Bloods."

In your case, nota, I should probably have said the Hatfields and McCoys.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 11 months ago

"Obama = 3.6 trillion Bush = 20.37 trillion during his 8 years"

It should also be pointed out that much of the increase in spending under Obama was the continuation of Bush bank bailouts that have essentially just propped up the profits of the big banks and insurance companies that BushCo encouraged to trash the economy.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 11 months ago

Not to mention the costs of the continuation of BushCo's wars (which are slowly but surely becoming Obama's wars.)

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

"I did read the story"

Really, Herr Klowne? Who read the big words to you (the ones with more than one syllable)?

"“I voted for Obama because I wanted change. ... I thought he’d bring it to us, but I just don’t like the direction that he’s heading,” said John Triolo, 38, a registered independent who voted in Fitchburg."

The message, boohoohoohoohoozo, is that the people who voted for Obama expecting 'change' don't approve of the changes he's trying to make.

"The trouble may go deeper: Democratic lawmakers could read the results as a vote against Obama’s broader agenda, weakening their support for the president. And the results could scare some Democrats from seeking office this fall."

The message, boohoohoohoohoohoozo, is that the Democratic legislature can't side with the president and the party against the will of the people without consequences.

Apparently the Hatfields and McCoys can read a little better than Herr 'Doktor' Klowne. Maybe his forte is more along the lines of cypherin' and sech.

"The voters voted against the Democrat because Democrats have adopted what have essentially been Republican policies."

Really, Herr Klowne?

Who was the last Republican president to buy a car company with our tax dollars?

When was the last time the Republican platform was based on redistribution of wealth?

Take some Pepcid and go back to bed, boohoohoohoohoohoohoozo. Maybe tomorrow you can get up and try to find another place that wants your Marxist Utopia. But I gotta' warn you, clownie, the Commonwealth was your best bet - and things aren't looking too good.

Satirical 4 years, 11 months ago

One thing is clear if it wasn't already: Obama's novelty and rock-star status is gone.

Americans are still hungry for change. They didn't get what they wanted with the Dems, and Republicans started listening to the voters again. I think most of the country is fiscally conservative and socially moderate. It is nice to see conservatives getting back to their fiscal conservative roots.

With only 41 seats in the senate the Republicans will not be able to push their agenda, but maybe they can prevent an irreversible catastrophe from occurring.

Satirical 4 years, 11 months ago

Tom...

Good luck in Lost Wages. I mean Las Vegas : )

Remember, most of the game of chance in Vegas are really just a tax on people poor at math.

monkeyhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Blame the Left for Massachusetts By LANNY J. DAVIS

"Liberal Democrats might attempt to spin the shocking victory of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts by claiming that the loss was a result of a poor campaign by Martha Coakley. This was a defeat not of the messenger, but of the message—and the sooner progressive Democrats face up to that fact, the better." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013221708478134.html

leedavid 4 years, 11 months ago

Vertigo....always looking to start something always attacking, never discussing. You used budgeted funds. Never thought for a moment to include spending outside the budget, not for a minute did you? Google can be a great friend. Numerous articles let me just blindly take the first one. Let's see where it goes;

Source: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Lets see: "•President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion."

700 billion seems to be less than 1 trillion. Seem that way to you? Then add the Haiti expenditures. Well you can see the problem. Luckily as of last night we got out of another trillion dollar Obama expenditure.

You and I are done. I would hope you would just skip over my comments as I will you.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 11 months ago

Hot Dem-on-Dem Xtreme Full-Frontal Finger-Pointing! Coming soon to PPV.

avoice 4 years, 11 months ago

Ah, yes. Hope springs eternal. On both sides of the aisle.

yankeevet 4 years, 11 months ago

The voters were saying in the bluest of the blue states, to both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, "We aren't happy. Washington, D.C., is not working and it's your fault. It's not Bush's fault, it's not Newt Gingrich's fault. It's your job and if you can't do it, we'll find somebody who can."

It is a chilling message to professional politicians. "Wanted! New senators; no experience necessary; just an ability to listen to voters."

To Democrats this defeat may be viewed as the second Boston massacre. For Republicans it maybe the second Boston Tea party. The warning shot is that business as usual is unacceptable, and if you continue down that path, do so at your own risk. And remember, we the voters hire you and we can fire you, too

local_support 4 years, 11 months ago

And bless you barryp for parroting the same talking points over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. The only poser I see around here is you. At least the other right thinkers around here can come up with a coherent point or two, even if I often disagree with them. I can hardly figure out what you are trying to say. Give everyone a million bucks? GENIUS! Lol.

What does Massachusetts have to lose if health care reform goes down the tubes? Nothing since they already have government run health care. And 4 out of 5 residents are happy with it.

So to read this as a referendum on health care is ridiculous. I know countless young people such as myself who do not have health insurance and need SOMETHING to rely on.

I guess I will just move to Massachusetts where they have health care coverage for all of their residents.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"Here's the most telling quote from the article: ...

"People aren't voting for Republicans. They are voting against Democrats not creating the change they were sent to Washington to implement."

You're correct that it's a very telling quote, pooch-head. But your reading comprehension (and pathetic attempt at spin) are as bad as ever.

The man said "I just don’t like the direction that he’s heading", pooch-head. He didn't say he was mad because the Democrats weren't "creating the change", he said he doesn't like the changes they're making.

"People aren't voting for Republicans. They are voting against Democrats"

Just as nobody voted 'for' the Democrats in '08; they voted against a guy who wasn't even running.

"It's a very justifiable “no” vote but it's not a “no” vote towards Republican policies"

Coming from the guy who was saying just the other night that Brown was trying to downplay his status as a Republican. The people of the Commonwealth pulled the lever next to the name with the "R" next to it, pooch. Get over it.

"Least we forget, the balance is now 59-41 in the Senate."

Actually it's 57-41-2.

And least we forget, there was only one seat up for grabs yesterday. It was a seat in a commonwealth that has a million more Democrats than Republicans. It was a seat that was held by Ted Kennedy, one of the oldest icons of the party, for over forty years.

Least we forget, the Democrats were oh-for-one yesterday.

"It's entirely possible that Obama and the Democrats will start playing hard ball at this point."

It's so amusing that you think the quote from Mr. Triolo was so significant, while you conveniently omit what else he said. One of his frustrations was "the too-quick pace of health care legislation." Maybe before you make an even bigger moron out of yourself, you should read what every political analyst in the country is saying about what would happen if the Dems try to play "hard ball".

The Republicans stand to make significant gains in the next elections, but it's questionable whether they can regain a majority. If the Dems try to force this through - against the will of the people - it will hand both houses back to the Republicans. Not that there are a whole lot of Democrats lining up to have what happened to Coakley happen to them; after seeing how the party and the administration left her twisting in the wind, do you really think they're going to be good little lemmings and follow her off the cliff?

"Republicans have all kinds of time to filibuster and make themselves look silly opposing what the American public want."

Speaking of looking silly, pooch (which in your case is the epitome of redundancy), how can you continue to be so clueless about the fact that the American public does not want what the Democrats are selling as 'change'?

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

none2 (Anonymous) says…

"People should keep in mind that this wasn't a signal that the population wants a radical right wing agenda, rather it was a signal that the population does not want a radical left wing agenda."

Yes, it certainly does call into question whether there was any so-called 'mandate' for Obama, doesn't it?

"That isn't a call to keep the status quo"

No kiddin'. Really?

Funny thing is, nobody has ever said anything about keeping the status quo. That has been the great lie of the Democrats, that there was a binary solution set - you either support OUR plan or you want nothing to change. The polls have shown that to be a lie from the very beginning - almost everyone wants some form of change - but not very many want the Democrats' plan.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 11 months ago

Why

so

serious

today

,

porchie

?

{laughter}

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

local_support (Anonymous) says…

"So to read this as a referendum on health care is ridiculous."

Well, except it was one of Brown's most mentioned campaign points.

Oh, and the voter they interviewed as part of this story mentioned it.

Oh, and Dear Leader talked about it in his half-a**ed attempt to pull Coakley's bacon out of the fire.

And, um, every Democratic politician was warning how healthcare was dead if Brown won.

And, let's see - pretty much every political analyst everywhere is saying the opposite of what you opined.

Yep, sure sounds ridiculous - can't figure out why anyone would think that.

(BTW, local, has it occurred to you that if the people in Massachusetts are happy with their healthcare, they don't want the feds telling them how to run it? Maybe they think the states - and commonwealths - should run their own show? Just a thought.)

MyName 4 years, 11 months ago

@notajay:

"that there was a binary solution set - you either support OUR plan or you want nothing to change"

Oh really? And what proposals have the Republicans made with their 40 vote "majority" in the Senate? If they had wanted to compromise on health care (or on other important issues for that matter) they could have gotten one. Considering how many people were bending over backwards just to try to get a vote from Snowe (for example), I think they could have gotten any number of good conservative solutions put into the bill if they had wanted them. So judging by the legislation that's been proposed, I think that's pretty much exactly what we're getting is a choice between this bill, and nothing.

Instead, the Republicans seem to want to play politics while another million Americans lose their insurance coverage every year and our nation's healthcare bill increases another $100 Billion dollars a year. We are not getting our money's worth and it will bankrupt the country if we don't fix it.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 11 months ago

porchie

is

bucking

to

replace

mario

as

the

biggest

user

of

vertical

space

.

number1jayhawker 4 years, 11 months ago

I knew this article would be buried in the back somewhere. NOW, if Coakley had won, I gaurantee you it would have been on the front page.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

"WOW americans have short memories..."

It's not that they have short memories it is that they are sick of having money taken out of their paychecks for things that are poorly managed and don't work. This isn't good news for either party..the people are pissed off and upset. They are sick of wasteful spending that benefits no one but those in elected offices. For example, I read recently that each senator is going to have their own "secret" office in DC. Those offices used to be reserved for senior senators, but now all of them get one. That means that they are probably wasting tax payer dollars on renovations for their own private spaces. To top it all of they won't disclose how much is being spent..nice. I find that a bit ridiculous especially when you take into account how many people are out of work right now. And the truth of the matter is...regardless of party I am sure both sides are just thrilled about it. I think people are tired of paying for frivolousness and "solutions" that never work because they get muddied up by special interests on either side of the isle.

here is an article from the Washington Post on those offices by the way. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/15/AR2010011500561.html

Stuart Evans 4 years, 11 months ago

Bozo Says: "It should also be pointed out that much of the increase in spending under Obama was the continuation of Bush bank bailouts that have essentially just propped up the profits of the big banks and insurance companies that BushCo encouraged to trash the economy."


are you saying that Obama just continued with policies laid out by Bush even though those policies were askew from Democratic ideals and seen as bad policy? Why would he continue with the same business as usual policy, especially after bashing Bush and chanting "change, change, change"?

I think I know why. it's because Obama has no idea how to be a CEO of anything. All he is able to do is look pretty for the cameras and follow along with the script.

professor 4 years, 11 months ago

GOP wins in Mass!!! NAH, they are not clever enough to pull something like that off. What won in Mass was the growing voice of independent Americans saying, "Washington, back off." Brown being a repub had nothing to do with it. He had the message that American's have been trying to send to D.C. but nobody was listening. If D.C. does not listen now, they are in for even a more rude awakening come November. And that goes for both parties!!

Flap Doodle 4 years, 11 months ago

Yeah, Dear Leader was a shining light for Chicago.

“CHICAGO - The squat brick buildings of Grove Parc Plaza, in a dense neighborhood that Barack Obama represented for eight years as a state senator, hold 504 apartments subsidized by the federal government for people who can't afford to live anywhere else. But it's not safe to live here. About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale - a score so bad the buildings now face demolition. Grove Parc has become a symbol for some in Chicago of the broader failures of giving public subsidies to private companies to build and manage affordable housing - an approach strongly backed by Obama as the best replacement for public housing. As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year. But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies - including several hundred in Obama's former district - deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable. Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama's close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama's constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted...” http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/

mr_right_wing 4 years, 11 months ago

Way to go Mass!! You made the right decision!! I now have respect for you again.

Obama = coffee = take a deep sniff = hello.

labmonkey 4 years, 11 months ago

I know I am a little late with this, but thank you people of Mass. The American taxpayer is very thankful for yesterday.

diplomacy205 4 years, 11 months ago

2010 federal budget - $3.60 trillion (submitted 2009 by Obama) 2009 federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by Bush) 2008 federal budget - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by Bush) 2007 federal budget - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by Bush) 2006 federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by Bush) 2005 federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by Bush) 2004 federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by Bush) 2003 federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by Bush) 2002 federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by Bush)

Thank you for pointing out why I despised President Bush. He spent like a liberal.

Actually that isn't a fair comment, as poeple should realize, all spending bill must originate in the House of Representatives. Congress spends money, not the President.

President Clinton owes the budget surpluses to Newt Gingrich.

President Bush owes the large deficits to the Speaker of the House while he served. I didn't bother looking them up.

President Obama owes his to Nancy Pelosi.

I would be remiss if I neglected to point out that GW consulted with President-elect Obama on the bailout bill. Obama agreed it needed to be done and voted for it in the Senate.

Our Last 3 Presidents have been a disaster for the USA

monkeyhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

"What if the Democrats make good use of these next nine months, and make the right course corrections to avoid the big November 2010 asteroid currently hurtling towards them?"

Too late. All incumbents are going to be scrutinized and a number of them will be thrown out. The ranks of the independent voter are growing at great speed, and they are just getting started.

dizzy_from_your_spin 4 years, 11 months ago

It's funny to read how the people who voted for vague promises of "hope and change" are now disappointed because Obama's change is vastly different from what they hoped.

Don't blame me, I voted for the tried-and-true war hero and skirt.

Stupid is as stupid does. Drag a teleprompter thru a community organizers office and you never know what you may get.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

MyName (Anonymous) says…

"Oh really? And what proposals have the Republicans made with their 40 vote “majority” in the Senate? If they had wanted to compromise on health care (or on other important issues for that matter) they could have gotten one."

What color is the sky on the planet you live on, MN?

"Considering how many people were bending over backwards just to try to get a vote from Snowe (for example), I think they could have gotten any number of good conservative solutions put into the bill if they had wanted them."

Um - what "conservative solutions" were put in the bill due to Ms. Snowe's participation, MN?

And - um - you are aware that she didn't vote for the bill, aren't you?

"So judging by the legislation that's been proposed, I think that's pretty much exactly what we're getting is a choice between this bill, and nothing."

And thank you for proving my point. You're absolutely correct - those are the only two choices allowed by the Democratic administration and the (formerly) filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the legislature.

"Instead, the Republicans seem to want to play politics while another million Americans lose their insurance coverage every year and our nation's healthcare bill increases another $100 Billion dollars a year."

Now - after you take a deep breath to recover from that rant - can you point to one single thing - just one - in the Democrats' proposed 'solution' that would keep those healthcare costs from going up?

Just one?

"We are not getting our money's worth and it will bankrupt the country if we don't fix it."

So you'd rather to bankrupt the country by 'fixing' it.

Why don't you just say what you mean, YourName? You could give a fig what happens to the country, as long as someone else pays for YOUR healthcare.


porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from one to thirteen and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000."

"Sounds like he did pretty well as a community organizer."

WOW!!!!!!

That much!!!!!

$400K! WOW!!!

Why, that's what - about 17% of the average McDonald's!

WOW!!!

monkeyhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Agnostic, when I speak of independent voters, I refer to the undeclared. There may be a place for third party candidates, but I believe it's a throwaway vote at this point in time.

Thanks for the recommended reading. I'll check it out.

Stuart Evans 4 years, 11 months ago

Porch, while it's true that Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review for a year, what does that prove? that he was in charge of what equates to a small student newspaper with a circulation of about 4,000. So he's a great lawyer...big deal. that just makes him a better crook than most Americans because he knows the nooks and crannies to hide his BS. Being the best lawyer does not make for being the best leader. usually the lawyers are the pack of guys hanging out behind the president telling him not to say this or do that. and community organizing, yes, he was great at it. in fact, it made him a really good campaigner, because he learned to tell people what they wanted to hear. Was he the director for all three years that he worked there? or did that title come along some time later and he's getting full credit for increasing his budget. the budget is another thing, why did it increase? did he tell the powers that be exactly what they wanted to hear, or was there some qualifications that earned him those budgetary increases? how was that money used? to campaign for more money no doubt.

Stuart Evans 4 years, 11 months ago

also Porch, you do project a lot. you tried to smear me with the bong comment, then you hit notajayhawk with "..not the brightest bulb in the package.." can't you have a civilized conversation without trying to tear people down on a personal level?

and what was with that comment to me about Sarah Palin? Haven't you figured out yet that I'm not a Conservative?

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"Are we going to get another submission from you about how everyone else is some sort of moron?"

Not everyone, troll.

Even before crowing about Dear Leader's crowning achievement of managing an operation about one-sixth the size of a fast-food restaurant, you'd proven beyond any doubt that YOU are indeed a moron, but not everyone.

Oh, but hey, let's look at poochie's track record on this thread:

"It's entirely possible that Obama and the Democrats will start playing hard ball at this point. Republicans have all kinds of time to filibuster and make themselves look silly opposing what the American public want."

Or, they might not.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

"Obama urged lawmakers not to try to jam a bill through, but scale the proposal down to what he called "those elements of the package that people agree on.""

Any other political insights you'd like to share with us, poochie?

gphawk89 4 years, 11 months ago

“People aren't voting for Republicans. They are voting against Democrats not creating the change they were sent to Washington to implement.” -porch

...or voting against Democrats for trying to force unwanted change down our throats.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"No, that was the opinion of the article on the thread where I made that observation."

Oh.

So it must have been some other porchfinkeler that said this:

18 January 2010 at 11:37 a.m. porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"Why would Brown “downplay his party affiliation” if that “party affiliation” wasn't a negative in Massachusetts? Brown is running as “angry guy”, the “Howard Beale of Network”, not as a Republican because that would be a loser."

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jan/18/obama-visits-boston-bid-save-senate-seat-health-vo/#c1115080

"No, notajayhawk, John Triolo specifically said that he wanted the change that Obama represented. What he specifically said was that Obama was not making those changes."

Doesn't your head screw off from all that spinning, pooch-head?

The exact quote is “I just don’t like the direction that he’s heading”. Learn to read some day, it will greatly improve your life.

"You're trying to spin this quote / vote into an endorsement of Republican policies. The problem for you is that there are no Republican policies. The vote was against the inability of the Democrats to push through what Obama promised, “change”."

Uh, right. 'Cause the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts said 'Since the Democrats can't pass Obama's policies, let's elect a Republican.' Um, okay.

I'm not overly fond of Mass residents in general, pooch - but believe me, they're not all as stupid as you are.

By the way - is the lack of a Republican position on healthcare the reason Dear Leader now says they have to compromise?

"By the way, notajayhawk,…..are you still denying your own family health insurance “on principle”?"

It's always so cute when you have to resort to plain old lying when you're truly desperate, pooch-head. Since you asked why I wasn't at work, I took one of the kids to the doctor today. I have said in the past - as you well know - that we don't choose to carry insurance for my wife and myself. And that's the part you - and a lot of your leeching compadres - can never seem to wrap your tiny little pinhead around. There is a difference between having access to health CARE and having insurance.

"I submit that this taints anything you have to say on the subject of health reform in America."

Coming from the guy who didn't know the difference between single-payer and public option, that's quite a bold statement. But in any event, troll-child, the fact that you scoff at the principle of self-sufficiency, that you consider it a derogatory characteristic that anyone would have the audacity to want to pay their own way, is just one of the many reasons why absolutely nothing you have ever said on any topic on these message boards has been taken seriously by anyone.

Mike Ford 4 years, 11 months ago

The dumblicans spend eight years creating this mess and the waffling peter griffin sector of the populace decides to put a couple of do nothings back in office so they can continue to do nothing at the expense of people who need healthcare. Gee this dumblicans don't want the government to work in the first place. That's why they wreck it everytime they're in office and then their dumb constituency has a short memory and blames Obama while letting Alfred E. Neumann and Darth Vader off of the hook, H.L Mencken said "Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people."

George Lippencott 4 years, 11 months ago

tuschkahouma (Anonymous) says…

Great, keep it up. Next fall may be even easier!

montevideo 4 years, 11 months ago

*%#$ing baby boomers destroyed American society after it was handed to them intact by the WWII generation.

BABY BOOMERS have brought political and cultural discourse down to the lowest common denominator of stupidity, think Republicans vs. Democrats is the same things as Jayhawks vs. Tigers, cannot understand the differences between socialism and fascism, pray for tax cuts while our infrastructure and schools crumble to the ground, cheer for whoever the TV/pastor/advertising corporations tell them to, and - this is where it gets personal - have left US, "the children", with a fatally injured economy and a ruined environment. If I had a dime for every boomer who complains in public about "my [socialist] medicare being threatened", in front of a generation of people who know full well that they will never, ever, see anything like medicare.

To top it all off, they have the nerve to talk about the young generation as disrespectful, nihilist, lazy, whatever - it changes every day. Question: in light of the above, why should we respect you? Our grandparents set a much, MUCH better precedent.

Sunny Parker 4 years, 11 months ago

Obama was a successful community organizer in Chicago, before he went to Harvard Law and became the President of the Harvard Law Review, a position traditionally bestowed upon the best law student at Harvard.

lmao! Community Organizer, now president of the United States.

You leftidiots must be proud!

beatrice 4 years, 11 months ago

monte, I believe it is past your bedtime.

Still 59 to 41. I would rather it be in the Dems favor than the Republicans favor, even if some want to see it as the sign of a whole new way. Um, sure it is, because everyone ... and I mean everyone ... has simply forgotten about the previous administration. Uh huh.

At least with the Dems in control, even without the super majority, the insipid social issues like gay marriage won't be able to become the issues of the day.

montevideo 4 years, 11 months ago

Sorry bea, that was my first angry prejudiced internet rant. I'm growing up! I guess I should replace "baby boomers" with "the system"

beatrice 4 years, 11 months ago

Monte, no need to apologize. I was just having a laugh. In reality, you aren't that far off the mark. Something else funny, and I think you can appreciate this, is that the people whining the loudest about Obama are the same people who would have prefered to see McCain and Palin in office! Like they would have done anything positive for the country's economy! Now that is funny.

Brown's election should indeed be an eye opener for the Dems regarding their handling of the healthcare agenda (not the agenda itself, but the handling of it). The Dems still have a huge majority and Obama is still in office. That is a good thing, and we actually need a minority party with a voice because the give and take really does work. I'm okay with Brown's win. Now the Republicans can do a little bit more than just be rude by yelling out at the President when he is addressing Congress.

In other words, reading these posts is like watching somebody doing a major victory dance after hitting a free throw late in the game ... even though his team is still losing 59-41.

sfjayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

lets hope this is the wake up call Mr Obama needed. So far he has been - for the most part - a disappointment.

Mixolydian 4 years, 11 months ago

Here's why Brown won:

The democrats today sought to raise the debt ceiling again by 1.9 trillion.

1.9 trillion.

1,900,000,000,000

God help us if the democrat controlled congress discovers what comes after a trillion.

montevideo 4 years, 11 months ago

Haha! OK agnostick, you caught me. I didn't copy it though, I wrote from a personal perspective that is very, very similar to Sullivan's poster and a lot of other young people. Reading the Dish post just made me think "yeah, that's exactly how I feel about all of those points"..

It's just frustrating to read about WWII-era Americans taking enough interest in their country's public sphere to invest in massive infrastructure projects, listen to my grandparents dis the boomers for being so homophobic and "values"-obsessed, watch videos of Eisenhower or Truman speaking intelligently to an engaged audience, or fantasize about a once-living civic pride.

It's funny: conservative types always talk about the '40s, '50s, and '60s as if they were this magical Golden Age. I'm not sure if they're reminiscing about the repression of women and minorities, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's more about those qualities I just mentioned in the last paragraph. So here's an honest, genuinely-want-to-know question: why do today's Conservatives so vehemently oppose public investment, community development, socialized education, and human rights? Those are the value that fueled the idealism of my grandparents' generation, and I heard that from a primary source.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

"why do today's Conservatives so vehemently oppose public investment, community development, socialized education, and human rights?"

I think it depends on who you talk to. I guess I would be what you call a "fiscal conservative with a social conscience" In my eyes those are important issues. However, I don't trust our government to really accomplish championing them in an effective way. I think elected officials blatantly lie to the American people so that they can personally benefit from their respective positions. The programs that are created by our government are rarely effectively managed. That really bothers me.... I am young and have a long road in front of me. I feel like government spending is out of control and none of it is really doing much good. If I knew they were going to increase my taxes for a health care program I felt would be managed effectively and not just create more debt and waste I would be all for it...but I just don't think they are capable of it. I don't trust our government..I don't want them creating more programs and expanding because I don't like how they run things. I could go on forever but I won't. What frustrates me even more though is that I think there are a lot of really great people in the US that could make a difference, but with the way our system works I think it would be virtually impossible for any of them to get elected...maybe that is what I find the most disheartening out of anything.

I think the tea party movement is the result of a lot of frustration with our government in general. I think a lot of individuals are tired of paying into a very broken system.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

"In other words, reading these posts is like watching somebody doing a major victory dance after hitting a free throw late in the game … even though his team is still losing 59-41."

As I mentioned in reply to your similar post on another thread, bea, that comparison would be almost valid - IF this had been the mid-terms and the Republicans had picked up a single seat. But the fact is there was only one seat up for grabs yesterday. It was a seat held by one of the Dem's icons, Ted Kennedy (Brown won in Hyannis, bea - in Hyannis!). It was a seat representing a commonwealth where Dems outnumber Republicans by a million voters, and had been held by a Democrat for over 40 years. And the Dems lost it.

To make your comparison more valid, it's like watching someone hit a free throw, not late in the game but with plenty of time left … still losing 59-41, but the star player for the team in the lead has fouled out.

As much as our Dear Leader is held in less-than-positive regard by many, pretty much everyone gives him credit for being an excellent politician, and even he has conceded the need to compromise now that that single seat has changed hands. Even he has acknowledged that the voters sent a message yesterday that the Dems can't ignore. But I'm sure you're right - it's no big deal.

So sleep tight, bea, I'm sure the ability to filibuster in the Senate means nothing at all.

Oh, BTW, bea, dearie:

Who confirms Supreme Court nominees?

beatrice 4 years, 11 months ago

Dearie?

I love how I can reduce notajay into being a wimpering little sexist just by not seeing the world as he does. It is kind of like discussing things with a blatant racist. Once they throw out the insults, it really invalidates the point he is trying to make because you know where the hate is coming from.

Whatever.

However, I will try. Nota, I never said that filibuster isn't a real tool to use, only that it is just a tool of obstruction, not a policy-making tool. You bring up Supreme Court nominees. Are you really saying the role of the Republicans now is to block all Supreme Court justices, no matter how qualified? The final Sotomayor vote was 68 to 31. I guess you will then need to replace those 8 radical left-wing nutbag Republicans who voted for her too then.

Personally, I wouldn't want to see any justice get in on just a straight party vote. Perhaps you would. That is just sad if you really believe your way is the only way. I prefer when there is that give and take, the compromise between parties, and that is why I, as a Democrat, don't see Brown's victory as a completely bad thing. And I still appreciate that there remains a major majority for the party I prefer, even if it isn't a filibuster proof majority. That kind of power can end up being dangerous for either side. We are, after all, talking about politicians.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 11 months ago

It's encouraging to hear the right in their glee fest today, as it could very well get the Dems back on message and back to work. In their giddiness, Reps don't seem to realize that the Democratic Congressional majority still holds the second largest held by either party since Watergate, only topped by the majority they held before yesterday. As for short memories, many seem to forget the process of shoving things through Congress that took place after 1994 when, with a smaller majority (52 Rs in the Senate and the Hammer in the House) and a Dem President, Congressional Republicans practically shut out Democrats from the legislative process. Dems largely didn't use the obstructionist tactics employed by the current set of Republican Senators during that era.

If the President and Congress can get their act together, they could really get some things done. In 2008, Americans may have held the belief that the gridlock was finally over and progress would be mde. Sadly, the Dems have refused to use the clear mandate handed to them in that manner. Brown's victory could very well refocus them in a way that prompts them to overcome the bipartisanship they attempted in working with a party that clearly has no interest. The elation of the Reps underscores their primary goal of scoring political points at the expense of an America in crisis.

Yes we can, indeed, and, lest others forget, we still can. America's fate depends on progress being made and the Reps still have failed to formulate and propose a plan other than their desire to halt progress and attempt to regain power. Americans voted for change in 2008, they still yearn for change, and their frustration with not seeing any change translated to another vote for change Tuesday. The message from the electorate is get to work and deliver on the change, already.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 11 months ago

What are they saying in California? “…"Everybody takes what is going on seriously," said Democratic political strategist Jason Kinney. "There is a strong anti-incumbent movement afoot, and in some sense an anti-Democratic-establishment movement. I don't care if you are running for U.S. Senate or city council. If you don't spend your energy running as far from Washington as possible, you do so at your own peril."…” http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-cal-dems21-2010jan21,0,7457043.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews+%28L.A.+Times+-+Top+News%29

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 11 months ago

Another important point of perspective: with every super majority comes a super minority. Reps are only one, newly minted breath away from the super minority status they earned in 2008.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

"I love how I can reduce notajay into being a wimpering little sexist just by not seeing the world as he does."

Not sexist, dearie. I was just taught to be polite to doddering old people who don't understand things well.

"It is kind of like discussing things with a blatant racist."

Ah, the last desperate gasp of the liberal - if you can't win an argument, call someone a racist.

"Nota, I never said that filibuster isn't a real tool to use, only that it is just a tool of obstruction, not a policy-making tool."

No duh? I hope you didn't waste the money on a Poli-Sci degree for that amazing tidbit. You're absolutely correct, a minority can never make policy (we'll see how things go in November, though). Thankfully, they CAN impede the misguided policies of the majority.

"Are you really saying the role of the Republicans now is to block all Supreme Court justices, no matter how qualified?"

Are you really saying I even implied any such thing? The point (why does everything have to be spelled out for you in little words, bea?) is that the Democrats can't pick anyone they want without impunity. It has to be someone at least tolerable to the other side.

"The final Sotomayor vote was 68 to 31."

Hmmm. Guess that suggests she was at least tolerable to the other side.

"Personally, I wouldn't want to see any justice get in on just a straight party vote."

But you'd be perfectly happy with the disastrous healthcare 'reform' package being foisted upon us - against the will of the people - with just a straight party vote. Pretty selective of you, dearie.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 11 months ago

noj says... "But you'd be perfectly happy with the disastrous healthcare 'reform' package being foisted upon us - against the will of the people"

Disastrous? What's your plan? Nothing, I bet, nope, no change at all. Disastrous would be that:

  • despite real per capita income projected to almost double in 40 years, net per capita income (less taxes and health care costs) is projected to peak in 35 years and decline thereafter, mainly driven by escalating health care costs (Brookings Institute)

  • without reform, health care is the number one contributor to entitlement program expenditures, represents the single largest expenditure at 23% of FY2008 federal spending, and is projected to increase 80% in the next 10 years (CBO and HHS, respectively)

And the list of disastrous consequences continues unless health care is reformed. But let's just follow notajay's advice...and do nothing. Wise approach, genius.

George Lippencott 4 years, 11 months ago

The people of MA spoke!!! The people of VA spoke!! The people of NJ spoke!!!

I suspect you are correct in that the speaking included both sides of many issues.

But as to health care. Most polls show the majority do not support the Senate bill as written. The majority do support health care reform. Could there be a message ? Maybe something less comprehensive? Maybe national health care?? Polls do not support the latter.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 11 months ago

Wow, your boy Brownie is still recovering from his election night hangover and is already in a bit of a pickle for endorsing Bill Hudak for Congress. He thanked Hudak for his support the day before the election and Brownie's endorsement is prominently featured on Hudak's official campaign website.

Heckuva job, Brownie!

beatrice 4 years, 11 months ago

nota, I did not in any way call you a racist. Instead, I compared your blatant sexism to blatant racism. It is easy to tell where someone who conveys such ideas are coming from, and to dismiss them out of hand. And you are a sexist. Simple as that. You prove it with your writing.

59 - 41; 257 - 178; White House.

Keep celebrating the one seat nota, keep celebrating.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

"Disastrous? What's your plan? Nothing, I bet, nope, no change at all. Disastrous would be that:"

Why is it that liberals seem to be so limited intellectually?

Why is it that people like flock_of_birdbrains are completely incapable of seeing beyond the binary solution set - 'Accept OUR proposal, right now, or do nothing at all!!!'

As George pointed out (and shouldn't have had to, to anyone who actually follows the issue) people are heavily in favor of reform - and opposed to what the Democrats are trying to foist on us. In other words, flock, they seem a little smarter than you - they actually envisage another possibility, i.e. reform that doesn't look like the cr*pola you've been wholeheartedly swallowing from Obama/Reid/Pelosi.

Oh, but - the Republicans have no plan.

Yet most Americans think the Democrats should consider alternative plans that would be more acceptable to Republicans - you know, the ones who don't have any plan.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/usaedition/2010-01-21-poll-health-care_N.htm

Which just might be why the Dems are talking about removing the interstate restrictions - you know, one of those non-existent Republican proposals - to get more Republicans on board.

Oh, and I wonder why the LA Times made up this story about those non-existent Republican proposals last November.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/05/nation/na-health-gop5

Of course, the LA Times implied this was the first proposal they've heard - except the Wall Street Journal was talking about Republican plans six months before that:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277551107536875.html

Of course, a year before that the analysts were comparing and contrasting the various healthcare proposals made by the candidates. Even later on in the debates, flock, Obama was attacking McCains proposals - you know, the ones that didn't exist.

[continued]

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

[continued]

But back to today's news:

"Lamar Alexander Outlines "Republican Ideals" On Senate Floor"

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_167205.asp

"“If you will examine the Congressional Record, you will find that Republican Senators have been following Mr. Wilson’s advice, proposing a step-by-step-approach to confronting our nation’s challenges 173 different times during 2009. On health care, we first suggested setting a clear goal: reducing cost. Then, we proposed the first six steps toward achieving that goal: (1) allowing small businesses to pool their resources to purchase health care plans, (2) reducing junk lawsuits against doctors, (3) allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines, (4) expanding health savings accounts, (5) promoting wellness and prevention, and (6) taking steps to reduce waste, fraud and abuse. We offered these six proposals in complete legislative text totaling 182 pages. The Democratic majority rejected all six, and ridiculed the approach – in part because our approach wasn’t 'comprehensive.' "

I guess what you meant to say was the Republicans have no proposals that haven't been spoon-fed to you by Obama/Reid/Pelosi and the pabalum shovelers at MSNBC.

But YOUR favored approach - spending over a trillion dollars on a plan that will drive healthcare costs UP - now that is truly a "Wise approach, genius."

beatrice 4 years, 11 months ago

Oh, and yes, as I wrote, I wouldn't want a Supreme Court justice voted along strictly party lines, but bills and legislation are passed along party lines all the time. Big difference. If you think they are one and the same, then you are delusional, as well as being a whining little sexist.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

"nota, I did not in any way call you a racist."

Then why bring race into the discussion at all, dearie?

Funny, bea, you've commented on my use of those terms many times in the past, and always called them condescending, not sexist. Trust me, sweetie, I in no way find you to be a sexual object.

"It is easy to tell where someone who conveys such ideas are coming from, and to dismiss them out of hand."

Are you referring to conservative ideas, bea, sweetie, or reality based ones? Because you do so seem to reject both of those pretty readily.

"59 - 41; 257 - 178; White House.

"Keep celebrating the one seat nota, keep celebrating."

I will keep celebrating, dearie. I will celebrate the fact that the people of Ted Kennedy's home town (along with the rest of the commonwealth that sent him to Washington for over 40 years) picked a Republican to succeed him. I will celebrate the fact that the Dems lost 100% of the seats up for grabs on Tuesday, bringing us up to three states (actually one state and two commonwealths) that voted Democrat in 2008 but Republican since. I will celebrate the fact that one seat has both the Senate and the House abandoning their proposals for healthcare "reform" and going back to the drawing board. I will celebrate the fact that independent voters - you know, the ones who decide elections - now favor Republicans controlling the legislature.

Most of all I will celebrate the kool-aid drinkers like yourself keeping your heads planted firmly where there is a distinct lack of sunshine, totally oblivious to the house falling down around you. It will make November's celebration all the more sweet.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

"Oh, and yes, as I wrote, I wouldn't want a Supreme Court justice voted along strictly party lines, but bills and legislation are passed along party lines all the time. Big difference. If you think they are one and the same, then you are delusional, as well as being a whining little sexist."

Ooh, sweetie, a little touchy tonight?

Maybe you DO see the house falling down after all.

Yes, they are different, bea.

The court (regardless of the beliefs of the liberals) doesn't make the law. The court can't spend a trillion dollars of our money. The court can't pass legislation requiring every American to buy something, whether they want it or not. And guess what - the people didn't elect the court members. They DID elect the legislators, those 60 Democrats who ignored the will of the people they were sent to represent to follow along the party line.

Yeah, sweetie, that's much better.

beatrice 4 years, 11 months ago

I'll say it again, I used racism as a comparison to your sexism. You are just as easy to recognize and dismiss.

59 - 41; 257 - 178; White House.

Yep, you are on a roll. Keep dancing.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 11 months ago

What I should have pointed out, notaspeck-of-brains, is that none of those measures, in part or whole, come even close to resolving or alleviating the financial disaster ahead when compared to the Democratic legislation on the table now or throughout the process. But, alas, I was trying to furnish credible statistics information for your empty little skull to, um, echo around in apparently. Yep, no surprise to me that you refuse to, or rather can't comprehend much less speak to an issue you obviously have ceded to your party, conveniently spoon-fed to you by them and those who stand to profit from you and everyone else. If you have no problem going broke or earning more but taking home less at some point in the future, well, more power to ya. You whine about taxes being to high, yet a measure that actually stands to decrease them is "disastrous". Don't take the rest of us down with you and your vacuousness.

Care to compare the CBO scoring of all of the proposals? Didn't think so.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 11 months ago

BTW, maybe you didn't get the memo that the GOP plans to oppose any HCR measure. We did. It made the news a few weeks ago and the presence of those plans early on was revealed by a former GOP caucus member.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

"What I should have pointed out, notaspeck-of-brains, is that none of those measures, in part or whole, come even close to resolving or alleviating the financial disaster ahead when compared to the Democratic legislation on the table now or throughout the process."

What you should have pointed out (it's okay, I know you can't) is exactly how the Democrats' plan is going to alleviate that coming disaster, Flock.

Here, let me help you out - I know this is unnecessary, since you've obviously read and understand the entire bill, but just to save you the trouble of looking it up again:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590eas.txt.pdf

Now, fleck - please point to where the Democrats' plan does one thing - just one, that shouldn't be too tough for such a great intellect as yours - to lower healthcare costs in this country.

I'll wait.

"But, alas, I was trying to furnish credible statistics information for your empty little skull to, um, echo around in apparently."

Really, flock?

Where were those statistics? Oh, you mean the ones that said rising healthcare costs are baaaad. Really? No kiddin'. Mommy spend a lot on your education for that pearl of wisdom?

And again - the Democrats' plan would solve that problem - how, again? Oh, that's right - 'cause Dear Leader tells you so.

"Yep, no surprise to me that you refuse to, or rather can't comprehend much less speak to an issue you obviously have ceded to your party, conveniently spoon-fed to you by them and those who stand to profit from you and everyone else."

Even such notable looney-lefties as boohoozo and merrill have recognized that the biggest beneficiaries of the Democrats' legislation are the insurers, clod. It's too bad Dear Leader has you so enraptured that you can't figure that out. Or maybe you're just that stupid. (My money's on the latter, from the quality of your posts.)

"You whine about taxes being to high ..."

I did that - where, exactly?

"... yet a measure that actually stands to decrease them ..."

What color is the sky on your planet, flock?

Are you really one of those in that little minority that really believes the proposed 'reform' will reduce taxes?

"Don't take the rest of us down with you and your vacuousness."

Exactly what the Republicans have been asking of you naifs. Luckily, now it appears you won't be able to.

"Care to compare the CBO scoring of all of the proposals? Didn't think so."

Oh, but I do think so.

How about the $61 billion cost of the Republican plan vs. the trillion (or much more) cost of the Democrats'? You mean that kind of comparison, fluke?

Oh, I keep forgetting - like all the whiny, entitled brats in Larryville, it's not the cost - it's YOUR cost. As long as someone's giving YOU cheap insurance, you could care less what the rest of us have to pay for your leeching butt.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

"I'll say it again, I used racism as a comparison to your sexism. You are just as easy to recognize and dismiss."

And I'll say it again, too, dearie - there isn't another human being I can think of that I think less of as a sexual object than you.

"59 - 41; 257 - 178; White House."

Just keep singing that tune, sweetie. Would you care to make a wager on what those numbers will look like after the next time the voters go to the polls? Hmmmm?

"Yep, you are on a roll. Keep dancing."

Ah, bea, dear, which one of us is trying to laugh off the most humiliating defeat the Dems have suffered since Michael Dukakis?

Brown won in Massachusetts, bea.

In Kennedy's home town, dearie.

In Barnie Frank's district, sweetie.

And your poor, addled brain thinks this bodes well for the Democrats?

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"I can see that the repressed anger parade isn't focused exclusively on me. You spread it out to everyone."

Angry, pooch?

Just because I'm not a mindless, drooling fool who ends every line with (laughter) doesn't mean I'm angry. I would have thought even you might have figured out a long time ago I tremendously enjoy watching you - and a few others - make such fools of themselves.

By the way, where ya' been for the last coupla' days, pooch? Crying in your (as usual too many) beers over Massachusetts?

"Even after I directly quoted the authors when I corrected you the first time!!"

Yes, pooch, I know you were quoting. Guess what - the little " " marks pretty much gave that away. But after quoting the article, you used that quote as a premise to ask a question. Were you asking the question on behalf of the authors, porchfinkle? Because basing your question on their premise pretty much implies you agreed with that premise.

Maybe when you get to third grade they'll explain sentence structure to you.

"And you dug up the “single payer / public option” claim again. When you presented a bogus Rasmussen poll that conflated the public option with a single payer system in order to get bogus numbers against the public option. The poll I busted you on!!"

The posts are all still there, porchfinkle. Including the one where I posted the link to the Rasmussen poll - two questions, not a single mention of public option. The only 'conflating' was by the child citing that 'unbiased' CBS poll on public option claiming - repeatedly - it disputed the Rasmussen poll on single-payer.

The post where you stole Liberty's comment and tried to pass it off as your own to try to prove you were on the right side of the argument is still there, too, pooch.

"So the wife is happy that you choose not to have health insurance?"

Why, um - yes. She's happy about the new car we bought last year. And the new flat screen, and the new computer. She's happy about how many times a month she doesn't have to cook because we go out. She was pretty happy in Florida last summer, and she was pretty happy at Christmas, too. Most of all she's happy we can afford to do all those things, on top of the expenses for the new child in our home, and still pay for her to go to the doctor (which she's done five times in the past two months). Thanks for asking.

Of course, I could have paid the $1,400/month my employer wants for health insurance, which would have been a total waste since we wouldn't even have cleared the deductible. But she was pretty happy we chose to spend that almost $17,000 the way we did.

So, pooch - is mommy happy she might get stuck with you leeching off her policy until you're 26 instead of 18? Maybe she's the one that needs a beer. I'm sure, with you around, she's never short of a laugh.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 11 months ago

noj says... "Now, fleck - please point to where the Democrats' plan does one thing - just one, that shouldn't be too tough for such a great intellect as yours - to lower healthcare costs in this country.

I'll wait."

Since you apparently have nothing better to do than troll, and since you asked a question to which there is an answer that others will benefit from, try reading this for your weekend homework assignment. Although there are other sections that contain appreciable, long-term cost savings, these are particularly worth highlighting:

Sections containing health care cost savings provisions 2713 2718 1003 1104 1313 1321 1323 1331 1413 3022 3308 3309 3310 3401 3501 3504 4103 4106 4107 4108 practically all of Title IV, Subtitles C & D 4402 practically all of Title V, Subtitles B & C 6403 6406 6504 6506 6604 7103 10202 10329 10330 10332 10333 10605 10606

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 11 months ago

noj says... "How about the $61 billion cost of the Republican plan vs. the trillion (or much more) cost of the Democrats'? You mean that kind of comparison, fluke?"

Hmmmm, most financial scenarios involve a cost vs. benefit analysis, and the CBO products are usually no different. It is a telling omission that your response fails to address the benefit portion of that analysis. You fail.

"Oh, I keep forgetting - like all the whiny, entitled brats in Larryville, it's not the cost - it's YOUR cost. As long as someone's giving YOU cheap insurance, you could care less what the rest of us have to pay for your leeching butt."

First, and most important, my direct cost is not the driver, here. I'm doing quite well, personally, and I have carried health care costs for me and my family for almost three decades. As it stands, the majority of the HC dollars I have paid over the years has underwritten the HC of others, but, according to you, that makes me a leech(?). I most certainly do care what everyone else has to pay because it will eventually crush the American economy!

As far as whiny brats or a comparison to that, I'll share a little personal background. I served our country honorably in our military and put myself through college (I happened to serve during the period where there was no GI bill, only VEAP, and Reagan had severely cut back college assistance programs) . I had almost no assistance from family and none from our government. I worked farms in high school to make money due to the recession. While completing college, I worked part-time, then full-time, caring for a wife, children, family, home, and furthering my career by completing professional licensing and certifications - all at the same time and on my own dime. My career has been very successful and I enjoy the respect of my peers both nationally and internationally. I choose to give back to those that are getting started or need a hand because it is the right thing to do and without any strings. And, I don't expect respect from anyone, I earn it.

Have a nice weekend!

beatrice 4 years, 11 months ago

nota: "Just keep singing that tune, sweetie. Would you care to make a wager on what those numbers will look like after the next time the voters go to the polls? Hmmmm?"

Okay. I'll bet that after the next election the Dems will still have the majority in Congress, and you will still be a simpleton who has to resort to name-calling and sexism when ever you find yourself unable to argue a point like an adult, which is always. I am quite sure I will win that bet on both counts.

Thank you for clarifying that you don't have sexual thoughts about me. That doesn't mean you aren't still a simple-minded sexist. Besides, I wouldn't expect such sexual thoughts to come from a right-wing teabagger like yourself. I'm sure your reserve all such thoughts for your hero Glenn Beck.

Glad to know how much you hate seeing the actual numbers that demonstrate Democrats majority over your Republican party. However, if you don't care for my pointing out the numbers of the majority, I'll flip it around to your side:

41 - 59; 178 - 257; out house.

Keep dancing nota, keep dancing. You are on a roll.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 11 months ago

Nice comeback, CRR. You were probably the kid that spray painted a "6" over the "3" on a 35 mph speed limit sign and thought that was way funny.

Now the real work for you. Tell us where there are no cost savings in each one of those sections. Don't miss any of them. The CBO didn't, but apparently you know more than them. Can't do it? Didn't think so.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 11 months ago

BTW, CRR, are you related to Sen. Joe "You Lie!" Wilson by chance?

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 11 months ago

My bust, I promoted that chump to Senator. I'm sure he would make it a majority, then.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 11 months ago

You're not only related to Rep. Wilson, you are Rep. Wilson!

Since you are so big on exposing "lies", show us an independent source that backs up your claim. Otherwise...wait for it...you lie!

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 11 months ago

Pilgrim, you already said that. You should read up and understand a little more about the CBO, their mission, and how they go about it. If it couldn't be trusted to at least some degree, Congress wouldn't give what they put out the time of day.

Maybe you can do a better job, right? Right!

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

a_flock_of_jayhawks;

First, thank you for your service to the country, and I’m glad to hear you’re not a whiny entitled leech.

But why do you insist on enabling the ones who are?

"Sections containing health care cost savings provisions ... practically all of Title IV, Subtitles C & D" [for example]

Including this part of Title IV, flock?

"Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Provisions SEC. 4401. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING CBO SCORING. (a) FINDING.—The Senate finds that the costs of prevention programs are difficult to estimate due in part because prevention initiatives are hard to measure and results may occur outside the 5 and 10 year budget windows. (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should work with the Congressional Budget Office to develop better methodologies for scoring progress to be made in prevention and wellness programs."

Or, in other words (for the benefit of those others you mention), they admit they have absolutely no idea how much, or even IF the money spent on prevention programs will result in savings. AFTER they spend the money on them, they think it might be a good idea to find better ways of measuring that. And this was one of the examples you gave as cost savings? Even the Senate isn't making that claim.

I'm surprised you didn't try to point to Sec. 1311, AFFORDABLE CHOICES OF HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS. Because this is what the entire bill is about, flock. It does nothing - NOTHING - to reduce costs, it just shifts them to someone else.

[continued]

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

[continued]

In the entire bill, there is only one section that even pays lip service to lowering the cost of healthcare (as opposed to shifting them to someone else), appropriately titled SEC. 2718. BRINGING DOWN THE COST OF HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. Although, if you notice, it does not say bringing down the cost of healthcare, it says bringing down the cost of coverage. And it does no such thing. All it does is set a minimum loss ratio insurance companies have to maintain (interestingly enough, set at right about what most companies keep theirs at now). Without a limit on premiums, that's not only meaningless, it creates a system where insurers are actually penalized for lowering healthcare costs (e.g. through negotiating lower reimbursement rates with providers) and rewards them for inflating those costs. Given the current industry percentages for loss ratio, administrative costs, and profits, insurers can double their profits by increasing their payouts - and, of course, their premiums - by 20%.

"Hmmmm, most financial scenarios involve a cost vs. benefit analysis, and the CBO products are usually no different. It is a telling omission that your response fails to address the benefit portion of that analysis. You fail."

I couldn't have said it better myself in response to your 'argument', flock. Given the choice of spending 61 billion dollars with little benefit or a trillion (or more) dollars to drive overall costs UP, that's a pretty simple cost-benefit choice.

[continued]

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

[continued]

See, flock, I thought you might have been smart enough to understand from my previous posts I wasn't talking about whether John Smith's costs would go down, I was asking how the entire system would somehow be cheaper. That was, after all, your attempted point in speaking about some looming financial disaster for the entire country? There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in this legislation that would reduce the overall costs of our healthcare system. It is an amalgamation of government spending, expansions of entitlement / welfare programs, subsidies, and tax credits. But - and this is the part you just don't seem to be able to wrap your head around - somebody is still going to have to pay for it all. Whether we're paying it out of pocket, through insurance premiums, or through taxes, we're all still paying for it. And until someone addresses the COST of health care DELIVERY, what providers actually charge for services, the rest is pointless. The proposed legislation as it stands today will do nothing - NOTHING - to reduce those costs, and will likely drive them up even higher.

The only benefit from this bill is that more people will be covered by insurance. A noble goal, but just one more thing that drives COSTS up, not down. You really don’t get it, do you? Third party reimbursement, whether public or private, isn’t the solution. In a large way, it’s the problem. When an ER visit costs more than a car, that’s too darned much. When major surgery or a catastrophic illness can cost 5 or 10 years entire salary, that’s too darned much. And nobody cares about that, nobody even notices, when they think all that ER visit cost was their $50 co-pay, when that major illness only cost them that $2,000 deductible. There is no incentive to hold down, let alone reduce costs when someone else is paying for it. We need to find a way to cut those COSTS, and there is nothing – absolutely friggin’ nothing – in the proposed legislation that will do that.

Or maybe, instead of trying to make it look like you knew what you were talking about by listing the table of contents, you could pick one of those sections and explain how the provisions in it will reduce the cost of healthCARE?

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

"Now the real work for you. Tell us where there are no cost savings in each one of those sections. Don't miss any of them."

Asking someone to prove the negative - yep, that's a reasonable argument, flock. But the burden isn't on those of us who oppose the legislation. The burden should be on those who want to spend a trillion dollars of OUR money to prove it will result in savings.

And I only wanted one example. But since you insist CRR explain how there are no savings in each and every section, why don't you fascinate us with explaining how each of them does result in savings?

Don't miss any.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"Here's the link to the Rasmussen poll you're referring to: "

Except that's not the poll I referred to, troll. As you well know. The link you re-posted is where the quote I used appeared, but you didn't bother to follow the links on that page, did you? The quote I used made reference to and was linked to this story:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/32_favor_single_payer_health_care_57_oppose

And I posted the link to the raw poll on single-payer. It was three questions, it did not mention public option.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/toplines/pt_survey_toplines/august_2009/toplines_health_care_august_7_8_2009

My posts are still there, as are yours. There's no point in going back through the posts to pull the links yet again - you've demonstrated over and over you are nothing more than a troll who will continue to lie or just not be capable of understanding (and the two are not mutually exclusive). Anyone who wants to can go back and review the posts, but as pretty much everyone here is familiar with the fact that you are a liar and an idiot (again, not mutually exclusive), I doubt anyone will feel the need. If anyone is interested, I'll be happy to provide the links to porchfinkle's numerous attempts to squirm out of making a fool of him/her/itself.

[continued]

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

[continued]

"We know you don't live the high life."

I'd really like to know who "we" is, troll. As has been pointed out to you - by several people - you do not speak for anyone on these message boards, and there has never been a single person that has agreed with any of your mindless droning.

I don't know what YOU know (although it's obvious that's not much), but WE know (and by "we" I mean those of us that possess functioning brain cells) that pretty much by definition, there are datum points above and below an average.

Why, even for your job classification, dipstick, there are probably people that get paid more than you do for asking 'You want fries with that?'

By the way, child, just as you can't tell the difference between single payer and public option, you STILL don't understand the difference between a techinician and a clinician, do you?

And, um, child? As I've never mentioned on these message boards what my exact title is, you wouldn't know if I was a certified counselor, licensed social worker, or psychologist, would you?

That's a fascinating website you linked to, dolt. I'd be really interested in what part of your tiny brain you made up all the answers to the numerous questions they ask to get an accurate report - like, for instance, even the exact city I work in, the type of company I work for, years of experience (it's a lot more than four - your shouldn't have used your age), the type of degree I have or license I hold, or any specialized experience or training I have. Not to mention I work in a supervisory capacity. But hey, I suppose your link is about as accurate as this one is about you:

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Fast_Food_Worker/Hourly_Rate

"Are you telling the class that you blew over half your salary last year on a new car, television set, computer, trip to Florida, doctor visits, a new child (Congratulations, by the way!!), a house and Christmas? In a health care industry where health care is one of the perks, a perk you refused?!?!!?!?"

Much, much less than half my salary, little one. And the child didn't cost me anything - I did carry health insurance when our last child was born. It made financial sense then, it doesn't now. As for 'perks' in the healthcare field, fool, I even told you in the post you are responding to what my employer charges for health insurance. Now, if you consider it a 'perk' to pay $17K/year for a policy we won't even see a benefit from since we don't clear the deductible, you are even stupider than I thought - and believe me, child, that's saying an awful lot.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 11 months ago

"...“The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office,” said Obama. “People are angry and they’re frustrated, not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years but what’s happened over the last eight years.”

Got it. People are so angry and frustrated at George W. Bush that they’re voting for Republicans. In Massachusetts. Boy, I can’t wait for that 159th interview.

Presumably, the president isn’t stupid enough actually to believe what he said. But it’s dispiriting to discover he’s stupid enough to think we’re stupid enough to believe it...."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MThlOTBiN2QwNDgzNTk0MDBkZjNhYzM2MWQyODUyOWY=

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 11 months ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says… "First, thank you for your service to the country, and I’m glad to hear you’re not a whiny entitled leech."

Thanks for the props, I guess.

"But why do you insist on enabling the ones who are?"

And the true colors are revealed. Without a doubt, the motivations driving the rest of your post and previous posts are driven by this belief. I call it the "I've got mine, everyone else can screw off" belief. And there are a good number of Americans that share that belief, but it represents a core difference in our differing viewpoints. And it is a discussion worth having because, if any minds are to be changed in the debate, those that harbor such beliefs would need to recognize the value of a greater good that extends well beyond their day to day existence. So much for compassionate conservatism. Sure, there are some points to be made with respect to the individual aspects of the Senate bill, but they are secondary to the more abstract beliefs that would serve to support or oppose the details of an initiative.

What really is ironic timing are statements made by SC Lt. Gov. and SC Gov. candidate Andre Bauer recently at a town hall meeting comparing giving people government assistance to "feeding stray animals". Couple that with some conservative's recent response to providing assistance to Haiti.

During tough economic times, it's easy to fall into that pit, but it is a clear departure from the values and actions that define the history and spirit of Americans - the drive to dig down deeper when times are tough, to give generously to those in need, and the knowledge that income and circumstances don't define the person, that for opportunity to be seized, the doors to it must be open. Failing to do so alienates and literally discards the strength we possess as a whole by writing off the potential that lies in those Americans that don't already have.


"Asking someone to prove the negative - yep, that's a reasonable argument, flock."

There's a stark difference between asking one to express a result as a positive or negative number and asking one to prove that it does not exist. Nice try, though.


"The only benefit from this bill is that more people will be covered by insurance. A noble goal, but just one more thing that drives COSTS up, not down."

Hmmm, more people pay in to a risk pool and, even if costs remain static, somehow the individual costs increase. Please explain the economics behind that theory. Part of your argument seems to advocate a more aggressive approach to health care insurance, which has been on the table through this process and that I endorse.

[continued]

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 11 months ago

[continued]

I particularly like your own characterization of the GOP alternative: "spending 61 billion dollars with little benefit". Couldn't have said it better myself. There are quite a few things that you posted that I happen to agree with, but that I don't think you actually intended to say, because they actually state the need and make the case for reform, not only of insurance and direct costs to individual, but further, health care costs. When we move at least a number of patients from reactive treatment (the ER visits you mention) to proactive treatment (preventive health programs), there's no question that the health and wellness of at least some of those individuals will improve and that it will translate to an overall cost reduction due to the fact the all of the costs related to reactive care that are not fully reimbursed by the patient show up as a component of overall health care costs.

"And the child didn't cost me anything - I did carry health insurance when our last child was born. It made financial sense then, it doesn't now."

OK, so, you received your benefit and, now, you will leave a balance on the books for others to pay back. I know it comes down to a matter of financial decision for you, but how you can't see that as a form of leeching is amazing. I'll assume that you may someday make it to an age where you may find yourself as a Medicare recipient. Provided the Medicare system is still solvent, you would begin to receive benefits from a system that - again, another assumption, here - you paid into over the years. Maybe you didn't, but now you require health care and, unfortunately, can't afford it. Should we just declare you a leech and turn our back on you?

Maybe that's why some conservatives are so fixated on "death panels". Because, to them, that would be a fantastic idea if they could only find a way to maintain complete control over their views of who should have health care and who shouldn't. It is just an extension of the larger view they share that health care should remain a luxury rather than a basic need.

beatrice 4 years, 11 months ago

"troll ... dolt ... child ... dipstick ... little one."

notajay isn't exactly a member of the Harvard Debate Team, now is he? Seriously, if you have to resort to calling others names on a constant basis, it is pretty clear that you have already lost the argument. Nota, on these boards you have mentioned that you are a father, correct? Are these the lessons you teach your children, to call others names when you don't agree with you? Nice. Real nice.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

"And the true colors are revealed. Without a doubt, the motivations driving the rest of your post and previous posts are driven by this belief. I call it the “I've got mine, everyone else can screw off” belief."

If you'd read my posts, you'd know I don't carry health insurance for my wife or myself. That may be a risk - but it's our risk to take. We pay our own way, which is difficult at times, but we're not asking anyone else for a handout.

Nowhere did I use the word 'everyone'. There are plenty of people who truly need assistance, and I have no problem with them receiving it. And nowhere have I ever been one of those who said the basis of my objections is it would raise my taxes. Personally, I think the best solution would be to increase eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid - again, for those who truly need it - even if my own taxes went up. But, while what the Gov/Lt Gov said was perhaps an unfortunate choice of words (I prefer the 'Give a man a fish' analogy), it is true that building dependency is not a viable solution. (Wasn't it that 'compasionate Conservative Bill Clinton that passed welfare to work?)

"Hmmm, more people pay in to a risk pool and, even if costs remain static, somehow the individual costs increase. Please explain the economics behind that theory."

Um, well - because payouts also increase? Isn't the point of the whole exercise to bring those people into the pool who can't get insurance now because of pre-existing conditions, the ones who insurance companies aren't covering now because the payouts are too high?

"When we move at least a number of patients from reactive treatment (the ER visits you mention) to proactive treatment (preventive health programs), there's no question that the health and wellness of at least some of those individuals will improve and that it will translate to an overall cost reduction due to the fact the all of the costs related to reactive care that are not fully reimbursed by the patient show up as a component of overall health care costs."

Well, except the Senate themselves spelled out in the passage I cited that there most definitely IS some question.

[continued]

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

[continued]

"OK, so, you received your benefit and, now, you will leave a balance on the books for others to pay back. I know it comes down to a matter of financial decision for you, but how you can't see that as a form of leeching is amazing."

Maybe because for the past 35+ years I've been paying into that system. Not too different from a savings account, really. Overall, in my lifetime, I daresay I've paid in much more than I've taken out - if there's a 'balance left on the books for others to pay', they'd be paying it back to me. You really can't understand the difference? I have definitely been giving you waaaay too much credit.

"Because, to them, that would be a fantastic idea if they could only find a way to maintain complete control over their views of who should have health care and who shouldn't."

You mean, like Obama/Reid/Pelosi, who are imposing their views against the will of the people that sent them to Washington to represent them?

I believe everyone should have access to healthcare.

Health insurance is a whole different animal.


beatrice (Anonymous) says…

"notajay isn't exactly a member of the Harvard Debate Team, now is he?"

23 January 2010 at 6:08 p.m. beatrice (Anonymous) says…

41 - 59; 178 - 257; out house.

21 January 2010 at 8:50 p.m beatrice (Anonymous) says…

59 - 41; 257 - 178; White House.

21 January 2010 at 8:14 p.m. beatrice (Anonymous) says…

59 - 41; 257 - 178; White House.

20 January 2010 at 9:10 p.m. beatrice (Anonymous) says…

even though his team is still losing 59-41.

20 January 2010 at 8:36 p.m. beatrice (Anonymous) says…

Still 59 to 41.


I bow in the magnificence of your superior debating skills, merrill - I mean beatrice.

"Are these the lessons you teach your children, to call others names when you don't agree with you?"

Oh, I keep forgetting - bea's the one who never says a bad word about anyone, especially never having been anything but respectful of our former president. But then, double standards are pretty much your forte, right, sweetie?

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

“troll … dolt … child … dipstick … little one."

BTW, bea, dearie - the person who those terms were directed at, he/she/it gets a pass for their own comments, right? Because their views are closer to yours?

Sorry, I keep forgetting the liberal/Democrat mantra:

But...

but...

but...

but that's different.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 11 months ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

"Maybe because for the past 35+ years I've been paying into that system. Not too different from a savings account, really. Overall, in my lifetime, I daresay I've paid in much more than I've taken out - if there's a 'balance left on the books for others to pay', they'd be paying it back to me."

I highly doubt that, since that would make you around 50 or so - not the best time in your life to not have affordable HC or HC insurance. Oh, and it's waaay different than a savings account. One earns dividends and the other lines someone else's pockets in the long run. But the whole point of insurance - HC, homeowners, auto, life - is a bet. You are betting that you might need to pay a huge bill that you cannot afford to pay out of pocket and they are betting you won't.

"Well, except the Senate themselves spelled out in the passage I cited that there most definitely IS some question."

Nice to see the debate has turned to one over the precise amount of the savings.

"We pay our own way, which is difficult at times, but we're not asking anyone else for a handout."

Except, heaven forbid, in the situation where you face a $120k+ medical bill like my mother-in-law did after my father-in-law died. Faced with that, most people are forced into bankruptcy to the tune of several a day.

Regarding the risk pool, you responded: "Um, well - because payouts also increase? Isn't the point of the whole exercise to bring those people into the pool who can't get insurance now because of pre-existing conditions, the ones who insurance companies aren't covering now because the payouts are too high?"

You get 1/2 credit. You forgot to mention those that would pay into the pool that currently don't have pre-existing conditions and, as far as they know, are healthy and haven't yet faced a serious medical problem. Again, you are entirely focused on the risk/cost side of the equation and aren't considering any upside. If I approached all financial decisions in that manner, I'd almost always leave $$$ on the table.

One would think that someone that only has the option of $17k/yr HC insurance, around 50 y/o with young children would be the first one to get behind HCR, without even considering the sense of a higher cause, reduced taxes, more affordable options for small businesses (= access to a larger talent pool), and future dividends or at least parity rather than increased outlay to entitlement programs and the American economy.

"compasionate Conservative Bill Clinton"

Now that's a stretch.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

"I highly doubt that, since that would make you around 50 or so"

A little on the high side of that, thanks. And not that I particularly care, but I do find it interesting that after having your own bona fides accepted at face value, you "highly doubt" mine.

"But the whole point of insurance - HC, homeowners, auto, life - is a bet. You are betting that you might need to pay a huge bill that you cannot afford to pay out of pocket and they are betting you won't."

No kiddin'. Ya' think?

Except health insurance is not exactly like most other forms of insurance. It should be, but it isn't. Your homeowner's insurance doesn't cover that remodeled kitchen. Your car insurance doesn't cover installing a new stereo. Health insurance is about the only form of insurance that people use to cover their year-to-year normal expenses that everyone has.

And some of those are optional. No, I'm not talking about botox or viagra. I'm talking about exactly what I got out of it - roughly $50,000 worth of expenses related to the delivery of two children. Those were not unexpected, they were planned expenses, and we know there won't be any more. So in effect, yes, it was just like a savings account. (Incidentally, even though your savings account pays dividends, your money is still being used to line someone else's pocket.)

(BTW, life insurance isn't a bet - everybody dies, flock. It most definitely IS a form of savings, it's just that someone else gets the payout.)

"Nice to see the debate has turned to one over the precise amount of the savings."

In a way, that's correct. Except the 'precise amount' could be absolutely nothing. Or even a negative amount.

"You forgot to mention those that would pay into the pool that currently don't have pre-existing conditions and, as far as they know, are healthy and haven't yet faced a serious medical problem. Again, you are entirely focused on the risk/cost side of the equation and aren't considering any upside."

How many of those people's premiums does it take to cover one payout of $120,000 such as you described? Do you really think the 'benefits' - which can't even really be quantified - outweigh the costs? And I'd be happy to focus more on those benefits.

What were they, again?

At least you acknowledge that many of the uninsured are that way by choice. There really aren't that many of the supposed 47 million (or whatever number the Democrats are using today) uninsured that actually can not obtain insurance. And as I said, there are other ways to fix that. I'd have no problem paying more taxes for expanding Medicare and/or Medicaid and/or some similar program to cover the healthcare expenses of those people who really need it.

[continued]

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

[continued]

"One would think that someone that only has the option of $17k/yr HC insurance..."

And where did I say that? I said that's what my employer's offering would cost. I can get a similar policy, without some of the options we don't need, for about half that on my own. And when, in my opinion, it would be cost effective for me to do so, I will. Until then it's a risk, yes - but it's OUR risk to take, and just because you wouldn't make the same decision does not give you the right to tell me what MY decision should be.

"considering the sense of a higher cause"

As I've already said, I think everyone should have access to healthcare. There are better, easier, more effective ways of accomplishing this. I'd have no problem paying a little more in taxes for expanding Medicare and/or Medicaid and/or some similar program to cover the health care expenses of those people who really need it.

If you ask real nice, I'll even explain why government is the problem in doing that.

"“compasionate Conservative Bill Clinton” Now that's a stretch."

Um, it's called sarcasm, flock.

But just out of curiosity - did you disagree with 'Conservative', or 'compassionate'? ;)

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 11 months ago

As far as I've seen, compassionate conservatism is dead, at least in the halls of our Congress. It was a term used to paint a new face on a more moderate faction of the GOP that has all but disappeared. I don't entirely disagree with conservatism. I happen to be a moderate (if you can believe it) and happened to hold an elected office that didn't require party affiliation, so I didn't affiliate with a political party. I was free to enjoy the praise and criticism on any given day from either or both ;) Conservatism has a place in the debate to balance. The current standard bearers of conservatism at the national level, the GOP, have abdicated that role and hijacked the conservative cause, which is particularly bad for America in this time of crisis.

If what the Democrats are trying to do is so bad, it shouldn't take too long to figure that out after it is in place and the GOP would likely get the reins of power back so they could adjust or do away with it. Doing nothing is a very bad idea.

I really find i interesting that the GOP is crying foul that special interests are in Dems back pocket (to some degree, I would say they are - both parties have that problem and it just got massively worse with the SCOTUS campaign finance decision, which the GOP praises), but if it is so, then why are the GOP and special interests spending so much money attacking their initiatives. Hint, it's not purely because they feel it is a bad initiative for America.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.